Football is not meant to be this difficult. Equalisation in the AFL should work as follows: a team struggles for a few seasons, they do well in the draft and then gradually become a contender.
By comparison, a successful team misses out on the best youth, struggles with salary cap pressures and eventually falls down the ladder.
St Kilda successfully developed via the draft and Carlton enjoyed success by following a similar blue-print. Collingwood drafted Dale Thomas and Scott Pendlebury and rose to prominence, while West Coast used the draft to great effect after losing Chris Judd.
Melbourne has had no such luck and they need to change their approach.
I confess that I am an Essendon supporter. I attended the round two clash hoping for a Bombers win and maybe even a percentage booster. I got what I wanted but I left dissatisfied.
Football should not be like that. A team should never lose by 148 points and be completely uncompetitive.
Questions will be asked of Melbourne this week. The media will place the players, the coach and the administration under a level of scrutiny that will be difficult for all involved.
The supporters and the media want short-term solutions. They need short-term solutions but none will be forthcoming.
The Melbourne Football Club needs to take a step back and assess themselves.
They need to analyse where they are now, where they have come from and what type of football club they want to become. They have to determine which players need to be footballers and which ones merely enjoy the fame and lifestyle than the profession allows.
Are the players hungry enough? It is difficult for an outsider to say with any certainty but it appears not.
I do not believe that there is a lack of talent on the Melbourne list.
Players such as Jack Watts and Jack Trengove were rightfully regarded as elite junior talents by scouts from all clubs. Jeremy Howe is an exciting player, while James Frawley and Nathan Jones work hard every week.
Unfortunately responsibility is left to too few.
Melbourne faces two issues: developing players and finding footballers with a passion for the game.
They need to determine what the likes of Collingwood, Hawthorn and Sydney are doing to get the most out of their young players, and why they are, by comparison, falling short.
Melbourne also needs to find athletes that desperately want to be AFL players. To play at the highest level is a privilege.
To be adored by the masses through the good times, and the bad, is not something that players should take for granted.
Players should understand that they are easily replaceable. There are in fact dozens of footballers in the VFL, SANFL and WAFL who could play in the AFL at a very high level and at higher level than many current senior players.
More importantly there are dozens of players in these leagues that would do anything for the opportunity to play in the AFL.
We have already seen the effect that players such as Michael Barlow, James Podsiadly and Stewart Crameri have had on their respective clubs. However, many others are not offered the same opportunity because clubs are obsessed with young talent and potential.
Consequently, many mature aged players are overlooked for 18-year-olds who may not be able to contribute at an appropriate level for three or four seasons.
For many clubs, it is more important to be good ‘five years from now’ rather than right now, and this is a trap that has harmed Melbourne more than most.
But talented players are out there, they are hungry for the opportunity and they are even cheap. Melbourne, who lack experience and on-field leadership, could do a lot worse than tap into these richly talented secondary competitions.
They may not find a Gary Ablett or a Lance Franklin or a Scott Pendlebury but they might just find a player who inspires the fans, who makes them proud to be a Melbourne supporter. And that would be an improvement.
The Demons will face a turning point this week. It will be easy to make short-term decisions, such as firing the coach or sending senior players down to the VFL.
These are the messages that the football media appreciate but is it the Mark Neeld’s fault if he does not have a talented and well-developed playing list?
Melbourne’s issue is one of experience and desire – the same issue they had last season and for the last five years – but these can be improved quickly.
Address this and the results will follow.
Callam P
Roar Pro
Yeah, I think it is easy to say that Melbourne should have picked different players with hindsight but the fact is that all the players they picked up (such as Watts, Scully and Trengove) were all very highly regarded by recruiters at a number of clubs. Their ability to develop player must simply be terrible - although I don't think it is obvious to outsiders exactly what they are doing wrong.
David Lazzaro
Roar Pro
Totally agree with looking to the VFL/SANFL etc for some mature age recruits. There is talent there, and in particular, you will also find players who can lead by example. They also desperately need to improve their ability to develop their young players. When Jack Watts was drafted, the vast majority of clubs would have picked him at No. 1, the same with Scully and Trengove. Their use of their high draft picks hasn't been that bad, its more that they haven't been able to develop this talent. This has to improve for them to go anywhwere, but this will not happen overnight.
Kev
Guest
Rodan ending up at Melbourne was a surprise. Richmond and Port didn't want him so why did Melbourne think "yes David Rodan is a good fit here". Perhaps they are chasing after mediocrity.
Kev
Guest
You've hit the nail on the head. This isn't the first time Melbourne have been in rebuilding mode. So far as I can tell they've been doing nothing but be in a constant state of rebuilding or restructuring for a decade and they have nothing to show for it. I know people are often quick to call for the coach or the CEO to be sacked after something like this but I'm not convinced because Melbourne's problems run far deeper than that. You don't create good culture overnight but nor do you turn it into something toxic overnight. Only way forward for Melbourne is for them to accept that they are in the deep end and that it will take tough decisions and years to correct this. I think fans are reasonable enough to accept that building a good team takes time but they won't accept it if they see mistakes being repeated. Melbourne need to appoint an external team to review the entire club but more importantly, be prepared to accept the recommendations they make. If that means sacking the entire football department and replacing them with personnel that they believe are better suited for the job then so be it. If that means getting rid of a club official who is popular but does nothing to contribute to the club then be prepared to accept that.
EddyJ
Guest
Yes, you're right. A 148-point victory will always be satisfying for the fans, but only if their team is playing a useful opposition. The best one-sided victory? Fitzroy demolishing North Melbourne by 150 points in 1983 – North were top of the ladder, and ended up being minor premiers. But a 25 goal victory against the current Melbourne team is not really meritorious. What to do with Melbourne? This is a really hard question – there's obviously something not right at Melbourne. They were regular finalists from 1987 until 2006, reaching the Grand Final in 1988 and 2000. Something happened in 2007 with the departure of Neale Danniher, but it's probably a combination of poor 'everything' – administration, player selection, draft picks, bad luck, financial difficulties – but without any doubt at all has been the call from the administration to 'tank' or play for lower ladder positions, in the hope of picking up better draft selections. Melbourne could have had Kevin Sheedy on a plate in 2008 – but chose psychometrics and PowerPoint presentations, over a proven premiership coach. Imagine what 2013 would look like if the Melbourne administration chose more wisely. I wonder what Sheedy would have said if he was the Melbourne coach and asked to do some tanking (or 'informed player management). 'Never let anyone dominate you' comes to mind. I can remember Paul Roos saying that the notion of high draft selections being beneficial is much over-rated – point proven at the Sydney Swans. But that's where weak administration comes into play – only an idiot would think that you can base your team on high draft selections of unproven youngsters – but that's exactly what Melbourne did, and hoped for immediate success. It's hard to imagine the AFL without Melbourne FC – they are an institution, but institutions come from nothing in the first instance – and can return to nothing. My guess is that Melbourne FC will merge (more likely), or fold (less likely). The AFL has the long-held view that Melbourne can't support 10 teams. Relocation is not really an option, because it would be tough for this current team to re-locate to... (where exactly?) and expect local support to develop around a losing team, which officially has a losing culture (as verified by the AFL handing down a $500,000 fine for tanking).
Callam P
Roar Pro
I thought Watts had a pretty good 2012 after a slow start, but I agree he has been pretty horrible this season. Wholeheartedly agree that Melbourne needs a cleanout, although possibly unlike most I think they need to pay a lot of attention to the secondary comps for players that would give anything for a crack at the big time.
Callam P
Roar Pro
Well I certainly agree that it should be difficult to win a premiership; I don't think anyone would disagree with you there. I meant that given the equalisation policies in place it should not be difficult to be competitive. As for your view that teams will fold. I think your 10 year prediction is probably too pessimistic. There is certainly the possibility that a team could locate (probably to Tasmania) over that period but it certainly couldn't happen until after the next broadcast rights deal. The VFL/AFL does not have a history of letting teams fold though with only two teams disappearing in 115 seasons so I think that it will take a lot to see a team disappear. Fans have proven time and time again that they are willing to do just that little bit extra for the club they love and some of the most passionate supporters belong to the financially less secure clubs. The current AFL setup is certainly not what you would choose if you were setting up the competition from scratch. Nevertheless these Melbourne-based clubs have survived for over a century and it would take a significant change in thinking by the AFL for that number to reduce. I certainly agree that rising cost pressures will hurt the financially weaker clubs but I have a suspicion that equalisation measures and spending caps will be introduced on football department spending. The Collingwoods, Essendons and West Coasts of this world will subsidise the existence of the weaker clubs.
Callam P
Roar Pro
The AFL has certainly moved in that direction in recent years with a number of experienced senior coaches moving into 'Director of Coaching' type roles. Normally they do this when they have a relatively inexperienced senior coach. Has it been successful? Probably too soon to tell. We're certainly moving towards a world of more specialised coaching where the head coach focuses mainly on match day moves, tactics and management overview of assistant coaches. I think it is the right approach but I think it is much more difficult to get a great coaching 'team' than it is to get a great coach. Probably benefits the wealthy teams the most. I think Melbourne's issue is that they have no idea what they want to be. They went for youth and failed and then they did it again but added in some players rejected from other clubs. It seems disjointed and suggests that they have no real plan in place or idea where they want to get to.
doubledutch
Roar Pro
I beg to differ. Football is suppose to be difficult, difficult to win the Premiership. Competing is just mandatory and all should be expected to perform to a certain level or be put aside until they do. Not only is it embarrassing for Melbourne supports, it is embarrassing to the game! You will always have this issue with one of these Melbourne teams. If it's not the Demons, it will be the Bulldogs. If it is not the Dogs, it will be the Kangaroos. There are far to many Melbourne based teams and the AFL will always be asked to support one of these teams in times of crisis. This is a cut throat business where dog eats dog and if you can not compete off field, then there is no way you will compete on field. I have said it before and I will say it again. Within the next 10 years one of the above football teams will not be in the competition. St Kilda and Hawthorne you can throw into that mix in the next 50 years. Most people do not get how sports work around the world. As the game becomes bigger, it cost far more to run a football club. It already costs over 30 million a year to run an AFL club, in 20 years time it will probably double. This means JIm Stynes charity efforts along with Gary Lyon self donations will never get the job done when you are 20 plus million in debt. It happens fast and massively, just like Leeds United inflicted upon themselves in the English Premiership when they went 160 million dollars in debt over a two year period. They were relegated and eventually went into administration and this was one of the oldest clubs in England. You don't see New York with a population of 10 million supporting 9 NFL teams. Hell they only have 5 professional top level elite teams across four sports playing in this city. The Giants, Mets, Yankees, Nickerbockers and Rangers. The EPL only ever has 4 maybe 5 teams at tops playing in it from London and this is with a population of over 8 million. I could go on and on around the world but I think my point is made. As the game grows, irrespective of population growth in Melbourne, more teams will struggle. There may well be a salary cap, but there is no limit on football department operations spending and when clubs like Collingwood are turning over 85 plus million a year, that is the force these smaller clubs are going to have to deal with for ever. It's dog eat dog and Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood are the big dogs, everyone else in Melbourne may well get eaten themselves in 50-100 years time.
Matthew -M
Guest
Usually when things like this happen there are issues on and off the paddock. What some rugby union franchises, is to restructure the coaching duties. creating a 'Director of Rugby Role' this role is focused on recruitment, culture development including youth and player development. this allows the head coach to focus on daily player management and detailed technical issues. This subtle separation of duties at the top has given a clear direction for some otherwise lost franchises. having a resource dedicated to building a team culture and ensuring recruitment will suit the style of play the club wants play today and in the future, mean the technical details can be fine tuned.
Callam P
Roar Pro
I agree. Which is why I think they need to take a step back and review everything before they make radical changes. It may be possible that the coach does not cut it or the players don't but that cannot be known until the club takes a good hard look at themselves. And if they cannot do that then perhaps the AFL needs to step in and ensure that the right decisions are made. Melbourne cannot afford an unsuccessful period like Richmond has had because they simply don't have the supporter numbers to ride that out.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
This all needed to be done after 186. What we're seeing is the third failed Melbourne rebuild in a row.
Jason Cave
Guest
How Jack Watts continue to get a game is beyond me. Same applies to Mark Jamar. Jamar is nowhere near his All-Australian form, in fact has gone backwards a 1 billion miles an hour. And who was the person who said 'let's get David Rodan to play for Melbourne!' Based on what I seen so far, Rodan is not the answer to Melbourne's problems. A major cleanout is needed and required at Melbourne, right now.